Absolutely tremendous conversation. It's sad it's even necessary. I'm going to post on Twitter because I have to put in my two cent and may others need to hear this. Thanks!
Great conversation! Jacob, I would love to hear a conversation between you and Dr. Jacob Pursely. He's been a missionary in Armenia for 7 years and has some insight on the history of the first officially established Christian nation (301 AD), the mass genocide they experienced in the late 1800's and early 1900's, and what it's like to try to rebuild there while being literally surrounded by Muslim nations.
I have a question for a different discussion: Is postmillenialism a predominant eschatology in Eastern countries, like China or Iran, or is it only predominant in Western countries where there is some form (howevet faint it now is) of a democracy/republic? It would be interesting to understand more globally on this subject!
@mtngirlbunny9290 this is a very interesting question you bring up. I’d like to know what the common eschatologies are globally as well. There’s one problem though; postmillennialism is not dominant even in the US or the West. Perhaps at one time it was, but not for the last several decades. (And this is part of the reason why I would not expect to find postmil thriving in less developed or more oppressive countries - because we export our loser eschatology with our missionaries.) This may be just semantics if you meant to ask if it is in the top three. I just bring it up to make sure we’re clear.
One proof that nations are still a thing in the new testament is this. In the old testament God promised Abraham that he would have children as numerous as the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore. And that all nations would be blessed through his seed. We are then told by Paul in Galatians that this promise is fulfilled in Christ. How could the nations be blessed through Christ if the nations don't exist as a new testament reality?
For the life of me, I cannot understand at all where Owen gets this idea that God dealt with nations as entities in the OT, but only individuals in the NT. I just don’t see it anywhere in the NT itself
Thank you for another great discussion. I am not convinced that hanging my spiritual hat on a political crusade to recapture Leif Erikson’s nation would pass the “Lord Lord did we not” test, because the doing is not the will of God but rather the doing according to the will of God.
During the discussion of nations, and the alleged "fuzziness" of the definition of that term, I was honestly a little puzzled why that fuzziness matters. The lack of a precise definition of something doesn't negate that thing. We know what a bush is, and what a tree is. There are going to be some plants that are close calls, but that doesn't negate or invalidate the categories of bush and tree.
Loved this episode, you guys nailed it not just because Owen is completely not qualified for the position he has but because because you really frame proper eschatology as it should be regardless if you hold to PostMil or Amil positions. The sad thing is and I hope this doesn’t happen is the folks at G3 probably won’t talk to you anymore. Yes some of the speakers like Dr White maybe even someone like Tom Buck might engage with you but top tears of G3 the people that really need to be listening probably will shun your channel. Hopefully I’m wrong.
As people are saved and brought into the church and the church does it duty to teach them to observe all that he commanded it necessarily will impact the two other spheres (family and state). The civil sphere will be considered Christian *when* they are submitted to the standard that Christ sets in his law and they stay in their lane. My vacuum and sewing business is “Christian” not because it preaches the gospel but because my business operates according to Christs word.
In light of this conversation, I’m continuing to wonder what is the true difference between Amil and Postmil? There appears to be many Amils who teach kingdom victory like Posties would but maintain the label difference? Is it really just “I don’t want to be associated with Christian Nationalism, theonomy, etc.” Or is there a real substance behind the difference? Is the social, national or cultural element of the theology the difference?
Great question. For the average Amil, (not the R2K kind) probably the key differences would be that Postmillennials: 1) are more preterist 2) tend to see things in the "jewish age" and "gentile age" paradigm, where as Amils will almost exclusively use the "this age/age to come" paradigm 3) Amils will not neccesarily see the necessity of the world being Christianized, even if they are optimistic on the outworkings of the Gospel 4) Amils primarily see the Kingdom of God as operating in and through the Church, where as many Postmils see the Kingdom extending to all areas of life and culture, even Kings and governments
@@eschatology_matters Awesome! That was very helpful. 1 and 2 seem like pretty clear lines, though I feel like 3 and 4 are more a spectrum which is probably where my frustration lies but could understand how one may want to work out the nuance in the weeds. Having been Amil for 8 years, it felt like a safe space where I could hold some semi-Postmil convictions without being beaten over the head for all that may come with Postmil. It was a recognition of the cowardice in myself (not to say that all Amils are cowards) and I’m trying not to project that onto my Amil brothers, but I can’t help but feel like that isn’t isolated to myself. Seeing interviews like this remind me of all the pietistic hermeneutical gymnastics that I performed to stay out of Postmil. Now that I’m there, I’m trying not to have another cage stage with Postmil like with Calvinism. That being said, perhaps it would provide more ground for an ecumenical approach between Amil and Postmil to have more spectrum in regards to these 4 points. Dividing lines don’t always have to be so ridged but the labels are unavoidably dividing lines themselves which I guess is my main point.
Oh boy, here we go around again. I think I keep listening to be sure I know the Postmillennial arguments. Totally a prewrath premillennialist. Btw, I am a huge Bunyan fan! I need to read his Holy War book!
Israel is judged as a nation in the New Testament. Also, if Nations is supposed to mean Gentiles broadly, and not distinct Nations, why are the rulers of the Nations told to “Kiss the Son” in Psalm 2. Are these rulers, rulers of distinct Nations or are they transnational? If they are transnational and it just means Gentiles should kiss the son, then why call specifically for rulers to Kiss the Son?
11:11 for me the issue is that the great commission is to make all ethnic groups submit to the messiahs lordship. Just because it says all nations doesn’t mean all people, it just means that all of humanity must be our long term goal of discipleship. This happens through the communication of the gospel. It’s not more complex than that. Strachans point as I understand it is that we don’t bring the national into submission through worldly means, but through the gospel. The laws changing and developing, are byproducts of the gospel proclamation and Christian ethical permeation throughout humanity.
It’s funny that owen won’t interact with anyone that isnt “winsome” enough, but i hope that he realizes his circuitous, borderline ridiculous reasoning turns off us “normal” folk who have well tuned nonsense-speak detectors.
Is it nations as in nation state or nationalities? I took it to have a connotation of the latter but I can only read English. So you’re taking the gospel to all the gentiles and they also make up nations and we want those groups to obey God which extends to laws. I think of the psalms where it prophesies of the “coastlands” or “gentiles” rejoicing. Why are they rejoicing? Bc they have the gospel which sets them free from sin and Gods law which is a freeing law in contrast to man’s laws. Is this tracking?
But what is meant by "the nations?" The actual government & its people, or the fact that it is referring to not only Jews, but Gentiles too, seeing as Jesus' priority of ministry was to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel? You could answer yes, but it seems that Postmil theology takes the balance off that "both" answer and relegates it to the governments. As Owen said, the aggressive gospelization of governmental entities is not present in the Book of Acts, nor is it seen in the commands & exhortations of the Epistles. We see Paul's witness to the Governors in Caesarea, and that he made converts within Caesar's household, but it is an exegetical stretch to say these can be used to show Postmil evangelism.
At 00:06:30, πάντα τὰ ἔθνη is sussed out. But the English translation puts a thumb on the scales. Since ἔθνος is more often translated as 'Gentile(s)' in the New Testament (regardless of which translation you check), it is certainly possible to translate it as Gentiles in Matt 28:19. I would argue that the context might push us to use Gentiles for the very reason Owen points out that the relative pronoun, αὐτοὺς [masc], does not match τὰ ἔθνη [neuter]. It's worth noting Acts 14:16, where the neuter αὐτῶν [neuter] does match gender of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. In support of Owen's view, see Matt 25:32, which has the same construction, but where the context dictates that 'αὐτοὺς' be referring to the individuals from each nation or the mass of Gentiles. Jesus will not be separating nations at the day of judgement, he's gathering all the nations to separate the wicked from the godly individually.
I really appreciate this feedback, and I think that is one of the better arguments in support of Owen's contention, so there's weight to that argument! However, I would respectfully push back a bit: mathēteusate panta ta ethnē is a "constructio ad sensum" , the sort of phrase we find in Acts 15:17, Rom 2:14, John's prologue, etc-this construction does not take its meaning/sense from the gender tie between ta ethnē and autous (that is in keeping with the translation notes, in keeping with NASB and others who take the literal reading of "the nations;" cf Expositor's Greek New Testament loc 339). In other words, the genders do not determine the meaning of this phrase, the entire phrase must be considered as a whole-that is the first argument. But the second argument is related: if we translate "nations" as "Gentiles" (which I do not think is proper here, but nonetheless), we must ask "Gentile WHATS?" In other words, it is still not referring to "Gentile individuals," it would only be referring to "Gentile people groups" (e.g. "nations"). I can find no other place where a transitive verb (mathēteusate) is linked with the accusative of πᾶς where the translation is "out of" or "from." Which means that either way we translate ethnē (whether "Gentile nations" or "nations"), it seems the plain reading is that these are "Gentile nations," without any grammatical/textual indication to the contrary.
Thanks@@joshhoward5752! We all agree that Matthew is using a constructio ad sensum in Matt. 28:19. The question is, why is he using such an unnatural construction? I’m suggesting that, since Luke does not make use of that construction when he is speaking of nations as nations (Acts 14:16), we should slow down to see if Matthew is purposefully throwing in a wrinkle to indicate that he is parsing things out separately. In fact, the first time he uses the construction in Matt. 25:32, I believe all sides of this debate agree, that he must be indicating individuals from each nation. So my argument is this: First, authors use the natural syntax of gender/number/case agreement when the relative pronoun matches the antecedent in full. So, in Acts 14:16 Luke refers to the nations as nations, walking in their own ways. “In past generations he allowed all the NATIONS (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη - neuter/plural) to walk in THEIR (αὐτῶν - neuter/plural) own ways.” Now, since the natural use of the neuter relative pronoun works perfectly when speaking of nations as nations, we should look to see if the writer is purposely differentiating either a subset and/or breaking out the referents as individuals when he makes use of the unnatural constructio ad sensum. And indeed, Matthew himself provides a perfect example with a parallel construction in Matt. 25:32, where it is clear to all that he is indicating that he is narrowing down the referents to the individuals within the nations. “Before him will be gathered all the NATIONS (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη - neuter/plural), and he will separate THEM (αὐτοὺς - masculine/plural) from one another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.” So, when we come to the Great Commission, we have to ask why Matthew would again use this unnatural construction. Given the previous use, it is only natural now for us to believe that he is doing the exact same thing with the exact same construction. “Go therefore and disciple all the NATIONS (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη - neuter/plural), baptizing THEM (αὐτοὺς - masculine/plural) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching THEM (αὐτοὺς - masculine/plural) to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” The burden of proof therefore is on you. Why would he use such an unnatural construction, if the natural syntax would have made his point more clearly.
This is a really great postgame. Much appreciated.
Should’ve brought AD on as well for this convo! 😝
Yes!
I doubt he would be brought on lol
@@ChristsWorldAD doesn't have enough books in his background
@@micahlantz905He has weights in his garage. Almost just as good 😂
@@micahlantz905😂
49:43 I think Jacob means “pious” not “pietistic.” Also to Josh’s point at 50:44 it is “pietism” that is negative, “piety” is the one we ought to have
Absolutely tremendous conversation. It's sad it's even necessary. I'm going to post on Twitter because I have to put in my two cent and may others need to hear this. Thanks!
Great episode!! Thank you.
Great conversation! Jacob, I would love to hear a conversation between you and Dr. Jacob Pursely. He's been a missionary in Armenia for 7 years and has some insight on the history of the first officially established Christian nation (301 AD), the mass genocide they experienced in the late 1800's and early 1900's, and what it's like to try to rebuild there while being literally surrounded by Muslim nations.
This was a great episode!!
I have a question for a different discussion: Is postmillenialism a predominant eschatology in Eastern countries, like China or Iran, or is it only predominant in Western countries where there is some form (howevet faint it now is) of a democracy/republic? It would be interesting to understand more globally on this subject!
@mtngirlbunny9290 this is a very interesting question you bring up. I’d like to know what the common eschatologies are globally as well. There’s one problem though; postmillennialism is not dominant even in the US or the West. Perhaps at one time it was, but not for the last several decades. (And this is part of the reason why I would not expect to find postmil thriving in less developed or more oppressive countries - because we export our loser eschatology with our missionaries.)
This may be just semantics if you meant to ask if it is in the top three. I just bring it up to make sure we’re clear.
@mtngirlbunny9290
Premillenialism is a dominant view in those countries.
Great show, brothers. Thank you!
Would Paul’s travels give us a clue as to the going to the nations? As well as establishing the discipling part as well?
Great conversation!
One proof that nations are still a thing in the new testament is this. In the old testament God promised Abraham that he would have children as numerous as the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore. And that all nations would be blessed through his seed. We are then told by Paul in Galatians that this promise is fulfilled in Christ. How could the nations be blessed through Christ if the nations don't exist as a new testament reality?
Exactly. See Galatians 3:8. This verse made a lot of things click into place for me.
For the life of me, I cannot understand at all where Owen gets this idea that God dealt with nations as entities in the OT, but only individuals in the NT. I just don’t see it anywhere in the NT itself
Thank you for another great discussion. I am not convinced that hanging my spiritual hat on a political crusade to recapture Leif Erikson’s nation would pass the “Lord Lord did we not” test, because the doing is not the will of God but rather the doing according to the will of God.
Good discussion
During the discussion of nations, and the alleged "fuzziness" of the definition of that term, I was honestly a little puzzled why that fuzziness matters. The lack of a precise definition of something doesn't negate that thing. We know what a bush is, and what a tree is. There are going to be some plants that are close calls, but that doesn't negate or invalidate the categories of bush and tree.
Loved this episode, you guys nailed it not just because Owen is completely not qualified for the position he has but because because you really frame proper eschatology as it should be regardless if you hold to PostMil or Amil positions.
The sad thing is and I hope this doesn’t happen is the folks at G3 probably won’t talk to you anymore. Yes some of the speakers like Dr White maybe even someone like Tom Buck might engage with you but top tears of G3 the people that really need to be listening probably will shun your channel. Hopefully I’m wrong.
As people are saved and brought into the church and the church does it duty to teach them to observe all that he commanded it necessarily will impact the two other spheres (family and state). The civil sphere will be considered Christian *when* they are submitted to the standard that Christ sets in his law and they stay in their lane. My vacuum and sewing business is “Christian” not because it preaches the gospel but because my business operates according to Christs word.
In light of this conversation, I’m continuing to wonder what is the true difference between Amil and Postmil? There appears to be many Amils who teach kingdom victory like Posties would but maintain the label difference? Is it really just “I don’t want to be associated with Christian Nationalism, theonomy, etc.” Or is there a real substance behind the difference? Is the social, national or cultural element of the theology the difference?
Great question.
For the average Amil, (not the R2K kind) probably the key differences would be that Postmillennials:
1) are more preterist
2) tend to see things in the "jewish age" and "gentile age" paradigm, where as Amils will almost exclusively use the "this age/age to come" paradigm
3) Amils will not neccesarily see the necessity of the world being Christianized, even if they are optimistic on the outworkings of the Gospel
4) Amils primarily see the Kingdom of God as operating in and through the Church, where as many Postmils see the Kingdom extending to all areas of life and culture, even Kings and governments
@@eschatology_matters Awesome! That was very helpful. 1 and 2 seem like pretty clear lines, though I feel like 3 and 4 are more a spectrum which is probably where my frustration lies but could understand how one may want to work out the nuance in the weeds. Having been Amil for 8 years, it felt like a safe space where I could hold some semi-Postmil convictions without being beaten over the head for all that may come with Postmil. It was a recognition of the cowardice in myself (not to say that all Amils are cowards) and I’m trying not to project that onto my Amil brothers, but I can’t help but feel like that isn’t isolated to myself. Seeing interviews like this remind me of all the pietistic hermeneutical gymnastics that I performed to stay out of Postmil. Now that I’m there, I’m trying not to have another cage stage with Postmil like with Calvinism.
That being said, perhaps it would provide more ground for an ecumenical approach between Amil and Postmil to have more spectrum in regards to these 4 points. Dividing lines don’t always have to be so ridged but the labels are unavoidably dividing lines themselves which I guess is my main point.
Great comments, ty!
We will continue to work to try and bring clarity and charity to these things!
Oh boy, here we go around again. I think I keep listening to be sure I know the Postmillennial arguments. Totally a prewrath premillennialist. Btw, I am a huge Bunyan fan! I need to read his Holy War book!
Israel is judged as a nation in the New Testament.
Also, if Nations is supposed to mean Gentiles broadly, and not distinct Nations, why are the rulers of the Nations told to “Kiss the Son” in Psalm 2. Are these rulers, rulers of distinct Nations or are they transnational? If they are transnational and it just means Gentiles should kiss the son, then why call specifically for rulers to Kiss the Son?
11:11 for me the issue is that the great commission is to make all ethnic groups submit to the messiahs lordship. Just because it says all nations doesn’t mean all people, it just means that all of humanity must be our long term goal of discipleship. This happens through the communication of the gospel. It’s not more complex than that.
Strachans point as I understand it is that we don’t bring the national into submission through worldly means, but through the gospel. The laws changing and developing, are byproducts of the gospel proclamation and Christian ethical permeation throughout humanity.
It’s funny that owen won’t interact with anyone that isnt “winsome” enough, but i hope that he realizes his circuitous, borderline ridiculous reasoning turns off us “normal” folk who have well tuned nonsense-speak detectors.
Is it nations as in nation state or nationalities? I took it to have a connotation of the latter but I can only read English. So you’re taking the gospel to all the gentiles and they also make up nations and we want those groups to obey God which extends to laws. I think of the psalms where it prophesies of the “coastlands” or “gentiles” rejoicing. Why are they rejoicing? Bc they have the gospel which sets them free from sin and Gods law which is a freeing law in contrast to man’s laws. Is this tracking?
I don’t see why it can’t be both, but I think you’re pretty spot on
@@vladyakubets thanks! Yes perhaps it’s both 😊
Great response to Owen!
Are you gonna have more content on Inmillennialism?
Give me Scotland, or I die.
-John Knox
But what is meant by "the nations?" The actual government & its people, or the fact that it is referring to not only Jews, but Gentiles too, seeing as Jesus' priority of ministry was to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel? You could answer yes, but it seems that Postmil theology takes the balance off that "both" answer and relegates it to the governments. As Owen said, the aggressive gospelization of governmental entities is not present in the Book of Acts, nor is it seen in the commands & exhortations of the Epistles. We see Paul's witness to the Governors in Caesarea, and that he made converts within Caesar's household, but it is an exegetical stretch to say these can be used to show Postmil evangelism.
At 00:06:30, πάντα τὰ ἔθνη is sussed out. But the English translation puts a thumb on the scales. Since ἔθνος is more often translated as 'Gentile(s)' in the New Testament (regardless of which translation you check), it is certainly possible to translate it as Gentiles in Matt 28:19. I would argue that the context might push us to use Gentiles for the very reason Owen points out that the relative pronoun, αὐτοὺς [masc], does not match τὰ ἔθνη [neuter]. It's worth noting Acts 14:16, where the neuter αὐτῶν [neuter] does match gender of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη.
In support of Owen's view, see Matt 25:32, which has the same construction, but where the context dictates that 'αὐτοὺς' be referring to the individuals from each nation or the mass of Gentiles. Jesus will not be separating nations at the day of judgement, he's gathering all the nations to separate the wicked from the godly individually.
I really appreciate this feedback, and I think that is one of the better arguments in support of Owen's contention, so there's weight to that argument! However, I would respectfully push back a bit: mathēteusate panta ta ethnē is a "constructio ad sensum" , the sort of phrase we find in Acts 15:17, Rom 2:14, John's prologue, etc-this construction does not take its meaning/sense from the gender tie between ta ethnē and autous (that is in keeping with the translation notes, in keeping with NASB and others who take the literal reading of "the nations;" cf Expositor's Greek New Testament loc 339). In other words, the genders do not determine the meaning of this phrase, the entire phrase must be considered as a whole-that is the first argument.
But the second argument is related: if we translate "nations" as "Gentiles" (which I do not think is proper here, but nonetheless), we must ask "Gentile WHATS?" In other words, it is still not referring to "Gentile individuals," it would only be referring to "Gentile people groups" (e.g. "nations"). I can find no other place where a transitive verb (mathēteusate) is linked with the accusative of πᾶς where the translation is "out of" or "from." Which means that either way we translate ethnē (whether "Gentile nations" or "nations"), it seems the plain reading is that these are "Gentile nations," without any grammatical/textual indication to the contrary.
Thanks@@joshhoward5752!
We all agree that Matthew is using a constructio ad sensum in Matt. 28:19. The question is, why is he using such an unnatural construction? I’m suggesting that, since Luke does not make use of that construction when he is speaking of nations as nations (Acts 14:16), we should slow down to see if Matthew is purposefully throwing in a wrinkle to indicate that he is parsing things out separately. In fact, the first time he uses the construction in Matt. 25:32, I believe all sides of this debate agree, that he must be indicating individuals from each nation.
So my argument is this:
First, authors use the natural syntax of gender/number/case agreement when the relative pronoun matches the antecedent in full. So, in Acts 14:16 Luke refers to the nations as nations, walking in their own ways. “In past generations he allowed all the NATIONS (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη - neuter/plural) to walk in THEIR (αὐτῶν - neuter/plural) own ways.”
Now, since the natural use of the neuter relative pronoun works perfectly when speaking of nations as nations, we should look to see if the writer is purposely differentiating either a subset and/or breaking out the referents as individuals when he makes use of the unnatural constructio ad sensum. And indeed, Matthew himself provides a perfect example with a parallel construction in Matt. 25:32, where it is clear to all that he is indicating that he is narrowing down the referents to the individuals within the nations. “Before him will be gathered all the NATIONS (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη - neuter/plural), and he will separate THEM (αὐτοὺς - masculine/plural) from one another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.”
So, when we come to the Great Commission, we have to ask why Matthew would again use this unnatural construction. Given the previous use, it is only natural now for us to believe that he is doing the exact same thing with the exact same construction. “Go therefore and disciple all the NATIONS (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη - neuter/plural), baptizing THEM (αὐτοὺς - masculine/plural) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching THEM (αὐτοὺς - masculine/plural) to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
The burden of proof therefore is on you. Why would he use such an unnatural construction, if the natural syntax would have made his point more clearly.
1:02:45 Iron does sharpen iron but it's hard to Sharpen a Butter Knife.